Vehicle Hacking Potentially a Go ( In the future )

*drools*

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Dude..HAHAH!

Before I even clicked this thread I said to myself "I bet Galt posts something salty about this." And sure enough..HAHAHAH!!!

And so did you, so what's your point

The game development reason is that it's another line of dialog to record & recall when needed, as an example as vanu spotting a lightning it'd be 2 lines, one for nc and 1 tr, whilst the blanket "enemy lightning tank" can be used for both factions, and since either of these will always be your enemy anyway it will always be right.

It'd would certainly be cooler if it said each one, but I always put these kind of things pretty low on my "game needs" and it doesn't effect me that much.

As for hacked things, it will more likely be "Hacked prowler spoot'd" and having the enemy colour that you've set it as on it's IFF tag, as that would work if an NC or VS hacked it.

I don't think it's that much of a problem anyway. I doubt soldiers would want to over-complicate things anyway by having to question if a vehicle is hacked or not. It still makes sense to say that "New Conglomerate Vanguard spotted" for a hacked Vanguard since it's still NC make after all

I think it'd make the most sense to just create these lines:
TR:Enemy Prowler Spotted
NC:Enemy Vanguard Spotted
VS: Enemy Magrider Spotted

a hacked magrider under the control of an NC toon in the eyes of TR is not really much different then a VS attacking them with a magrider.

No I'm not. I've literally stated what I wanted for infantry right there! There's no extra C4 in there, there's new versions for lock-ons. If you've been reading some of the latest tank threads you would have seen my other idea's to make infantry capable of going toe-to-toe against vehicles: Non-lethal weapons that temporarily nerf the tank/aircraft. From smoke to obscure vision&IFF dorito's to weapons that remove HUD to locking up abilities and sapping their power to reducing speed to reducing turret&chassis turn ratio's etc. These tools would already be enough in concert with the existing AV weapons and perhaps a few extra lethal one's to let infantry go toe-to-toe with vehicles, assuming the infantry uses their superior numbers or manages to overcome all the challenges in approaching a tank.

Now as I also said, I think that infiltrators shouldn't be able to steal occupied vehicles, but all unoccupied (with the exception of deployed Sunderers) are fair game.

So you assume I'm all for stealing occupied vehicles even though I expressly stated I wasn't? In fact in my first post?
Also, the devs stated that if this makes it in, there will definitely be ways to counter it or cons that will make it easier for the tank driver to fight back.

AP is a good counter to other tanks, are people who use AP bad tankers as well?
Using the right counter for the right threat should be part of the game. The sorry state of AI canons shows how terrible they are and how weak the infantry AV options actually are. Sure we have C4, but that requires CQC and in most cases a tanker that is obliviously tunnel visioning somewhere. Most infantry AV options have a much shorter range than tanks, and tanks have always been well able to make use of that when farming.

No, the infantry AV tools aren't fine, that's why we needed walls to begin with. This isn't a problem with how bases used to be build. Even a base layout that favored tanks should not have allowed a mere two or three tanks to dominate entire 48+ battles. This is a problem with a lack of AV power when on equal ground compared to the tank.
You can already see it in tank vs tank fights actually: It often changes into a slugfest where people pop behind cover for repairs, then return. The differences are massive however when it comes to infantry: Infantry has hidiously low AV power compared to tanks in most cases (a few OP weapons like Ravens exist of course that need nerfing), combine that with the survivability of a wet paper tissue, and you should realize that in tank vs infantry battles the tanks can do the exact same as against other tanks but with more room to get behind cover or escape, while infantry doesn't have the option to get behind cover and repair because they are dead.

Or steal it! Add that to the list!
I think that it would be better to give every class a utility that allows you to steal a vehicle. This way it costs you resources if you do steal one and it's not an exclusive infiltrator perk. There is absolutely no reason you have given not to.

Funny, very funny. So either you have to C4 a tank to solo it, or pick a vehicle to counter a vehicle. That's bad game design. Pure and simple.

No that's not what it's supposed to be. Combined arms means that getting different unit types and classes together creates synergy and is more powerful than a same-class or same-unit assault of the same size. But depending on the game you need to keep an eye on keeping it fun for everyone.
In an RTS there's no problem in making infantry canon fodder to draw fire and scout, and nothing much else. In PS2 it would invalidate most of the options infantry have and suck the fun out of the game. In PS2, every unit and class needs to be able to pick loadouts to combat a specific unit type. This means that infiltrators need as much something to combat vehicles as the HA. Of course, this is where the non-lethal weapons and synergy comes in: Non-lethal weapons are support weapons that allow others nearby to take advantage. It would be invaluable for a group of tanks to have infantry with them that can knock out hostile HUD's, or prevent them from activating magburn/vanguard shield, or reduce their speed and capability to escape. At the same time the same is true for inter-class combat, where some infantry might be using lethal weapons like RL's while others prevent the tank from noticing, returning fire properly, or escaping.
Add an option for people to kill a crew and steal a vehicle, and you've got a full set.

The problem was never with the bases. Sure the bases could have been build better, but the sheer imbalance between infantry AV and tanks was the reason why they could so easily lock up entire fights and those walls were put up (and HE nerfed time and again).

Not sure what you mean here. I get the gist but can you clarify before I react to a wrong assumption?

Good question. I think that we should simply start somewhere: a group of 4 to 5 mixed infantry with AV loadouts should be able to go toe-to-toe with a tank at 200 to 250m distance. Weapons that are more CQC require less, for instance 3 infantry can go toe-to-toe with weapons ranging from 50 to 100m. And 2 or 1 infantry when the range is between 0 to 10m distance.
As always, positioning and use is key here. Players above average skill might need less infantry (or require more infantry if they are the tank), players below with a Zerg mentality would need more infantry to kill a tank/get killed by less infantry.
Another good question would be of course: What measure are we using right now to determine if this is a good system or not?

infantry should not go toe to toe with vehicles solo as infantry and expect to survive with free AV tools, pull a MAX or use C4, being able to steal occupied vehicles would be OP and would make it more cheesy then C4

you may not but i'm sure there are some that would love to be able to cause havoc that way.

New additions to the game should not solely made powerful then countered by a slot item, there is plenty of choice already, sometimes they should add things and then make the counter skill and intellect based and not a one size fits all slot item that only low skill users will use (because be honest an AV geared tanker worth his salt would use stealth for ambushing over a defense item to protect against something an enemy might do every once and a while)

infantry are small and have the greatest selection of cover in the entire game, the only time tanks dominate base battles is when the enemy is too stupid or lazy to work together with free AV tools or pull costly AV tools like maxes, C4 and redeploying down the line and *gasp* pulling their own vehicles! if more actually put time into learning how to tank more tank battles would occur and less tanks would be firing on infantry. being able to hack enemy vehicles won't make the pilots better skilled it'll only give them another coffin on wheels sicne they didn't invest anything in pulling it.

no. you say a RTS should have classes that are good at certain roles and yet you turnabout with this? infantry AV is fine the issue is with the players consistently failing to pull free AV tools as a group or puling costly AV tools (even if they are vehicles) a group of players with AV weapons are powerful ESP when camped high with a sunderer with them they can murder vehicles from long range.

C4, MAXes, Ground Vehicles and air they are the costly counters to vehicles. if someone knows what they are doing they can take a 450 nanite MBT and beat another with a fair chance of winning compared to almost none with a RL solo and some with C4 or a MAX.

the point of classes is to make them fill different roles, infiltrator is an ambush role, only being able to hack unoccupied vehicles would fit this role well as tankers do need to exit and repair, that said i don't think every class should be able to carry anti-tank weapons, it just doesn't make sense for a medic, infiltrator or light assault to have tools to deal with vehicles, that's the job of maxes, engineers and HAs.

i'm not bothered much by C4 fairies myself because there is a counter that doesn't rely on slot selections, while it doesn't work all the time it works most of the time.

being able to hack occupied vehicles would make vehicle hacking C4 v2 in my mind. one way or another they are probably going to put this in but at the very least we can try to make sure it's put in such a way that 'hack defense slot' isn't the sole effective counter and that vehicle hacking isn't too powerful. demigan what are your thoughts on making the hacking tool itself cost some resources(or it's ammo)?

>Super sneaky stalker beamer infiltrator
>Squad with a friend in an ESF
>Friend hornets the MLGL33TF4RMPR0 to damage him and flies off
>MLGL33TF4RMPR0 questions what the **** that was then hops out to rep
>Super sneaky stalker beamer infiltrator kills squishy MLGL33TF4RMPR0 because he probably cant aim infantry guns
>Super sneaky stalker beamer infiltrator hacks tank, drops spawn beacon and redeploys as an engineer
>Super Sneaky Engineer repairs tank and turns into MLGL33TF4RMPR0

gg

"The circle of life...." on Auraxis

I can see this being tonnes of fun. Any half decent tanker is going to lose their tank to a hack so infrequently it's not going to matter.

But the one time you manage to hack an enemy MBT and go on a rampage, you will remember forever.

Chances of hacking an enemy vehicle, getting it safety, changing to engineer and then doing anything meaningful with it is slim. Would be much easier just to pull your own vehicle.

As a tanker, the main thing your gonna notice is you are suddenly getting a bunch free infiltrator kills.

Careful on those landing pads though pilots, because I suspect stalkers will be setting up camp there.

As someone who plays a lot with both vehicles and infiltrator, I'd welcome this change.

A tank cannon being able to obliterate one soldier with a single well-placed shot is not ridiculous. That fact that terrain and bases were constructed as if to allow any tank a vantage point into every aspect of the map with very little work - that abhorred "convenient nearby hill" that can be found around every base in the game - thus promoting the delivery of that well-placed shot most certainly is. Every aspect of the map also includes (included) the easy vulnerability of the spawn room, of the capture point, and of every nook and cranny between the spawn room and capture point. There was no sorting algorithm of threats like that. The distant threats would be reasonable if not for the constant pressing immediate concerns (Infantry). The pressing immediate concerns would not be unreasonable if not for the constant distant threats (tanks with a good view).

If you're going to design an enclosed region in which static objectives are enforced, the threats and the objectives must be kept within a distance from each other where each can find the other manageable to an extent when they must interact. In an open field battle, Infantry and tanks could go toe to toe because of the use of terrain where either side can tactically (and tactfully) retire from exposure from time to time. If you make everything open, the side that touts durability and/or range gets free reign. There's nowhere to deal with one's own issues if that's not one's own side.

As amusing as the throught of 200-250m being "toe to toe" is, as the game currently stands, four Infantry with two volleys of their free rockets apiece can destroy any MBT from the front armor and that number accounts for Vanguards. Since rockets don't have damage degradation and rocket drop is relatively generous, the range is quite extensive as long as you can compensate. That's HAs. MAXes with AV arms? complicated at times but do-able. Engineers? AV turrets, mines (as traps), the Archer just to distract or land a glancing but killing blow. For Medics and LAs, the question is delivery and transport; and, only Medics struggle with that issue, as so the topic goes. Only Infiltrators come up somewhat short, but a group of Infiltrators still have the best chance of getting at the vulnerable back of a Armor unit and delivering AV bolts to the most weak side of the unit, and actually getting away with not being caught as long as they do it right.

By your own definition, however, wouldn't C-4 as it currently exists constitute an exceptional element? it allows one player to go truly toe to toe with a tank with an extremely low number of "hits" and very reliably suceed due only to the oblique method of delivery. Not even all suggestions about C-4 (and LAs) involve doing away with it entirely but making the execution method more engaging and even then it often is met with scorn and derision.

I think a reasonable place to start is, "Ignoring the dissatisfaction inherent from failure, do you actually enjoy the challenge when you have to engage your counter?"

Ok that's more clear now.
Yes in many ways it's good to have tanks obliterate infantry in one shot. It doesn't have to be, such as the game Renegade shows, but in most games it helps with the immersion and gives a better feeling when using a tank overall (or getting shot at by a tank, trying to avoid getting hit while explosions rock the entire world should be just as much part of the game as anything else)
I would say that the hill that allows vehicles to snipe into bases shouldn't have been a problem with the right infantry AV setups. I would compare it to a sniper: Getting into a position with lots of view to snipe is good for spotting and killing targets, but also opens you up for an easy retaliation by another sniper or even normal fire. The advantages of the right class for the right range should give you an advantage, but getting shot at by multiple enemies also drives you away to another spot.
The same should apply to tanks: You make yourself a massively good target for a large part of a base by sitting still on a hill? You should be devastated quickly by multiple different infantry firing from different places you aren't looking at. Unfortunately, RL's have too much drop to reliably hit tanks positioned in this way in most cases, and the damage combined with the total TTK means these weapons will rarely kill a tank in time, or force him off his position for longer than he is killing infantry.
That's why I would like to introduce some AV weapons with lower but more consistent damage, such as a weapon with little to no drop, several shots/faster reload and a slow enough velocity that moving vehicles can dodge. This puts vehicles and infantry on a more equal footing, allowing infantry to quickly put some damage downrange and force vehicles to move, which is a detriment to their aim and helps infantry move around and get into position without directly nerfing vehicle damage. Add a ton of non-lethal AV weapons that help infantry dodge tank fire and/or help teammates take down tanks and it would already become a better game. Don't forget that these changes would need to go hand-in-hand with updates to all tank-mounted AI weapons to make them undeniably the best weapons for AI work, rather than "Well with aim AV weapons are almost exactly as good as AI weapons". A tank with AI weapons should be a beast. But rather than go for the old "huge AOE weapons" which was hated because the skill required to kill was almost zero, you should simply give them a lot of skillful additions. Co-ax canons, possible small AOE concussion/flash/EMP effects, more magazine-fed weapons like the Viper etc. These weapons should fill in the disadvantages that for instance AP has when fighting infantry at elevations, allowing the AI weapons to more reliably hit and kill infantry AV nests on towers or mountains especially at long range.
This puts tanks in a much better position. An AI tank is really something that can justifiably murder large groups of infantry, but when attacked by AV tanks they are screwed as they should be, and AV infantry could potentially fight back but not without a lot of risk. AV tanks should simply not be capable of withstanding focused infantry AV, while still being well capable of handling a few infantry at a time with proper positioning.
I know this is a bit different from what I said earlier, which was that AI weapons should have light AV capabilities as well. I still think that's a good option but with proper division between an AV and AI tank it shouldn't be necessary.

Hmm, maybe. I would say that they dropped the ball in the Meta anyway. Too many static targets, too little variation in the gameplay. All vehicles, tanks and aircraft alike, should be able to help in the capture of a base. Either directly by capturing vehicle-specific points or indirectly through destruction of special objects.
Seriously, if they had added several types of CTF mechanics, including capturing a flag (or special CPU core/protable capture point or whatever you want to call it for the lore) with vehicles and bringing it back to your base and defending it afterwards it would have made the game so much more alive, and attacks much less static and more fluid. It would even have solved a lot of the spawncamping issues because suddenly area control becomes much more important when you want to cut off an enemy flag carrier or try to get your flag to a base.
Aside from that tantrum, there's so many more options for a more fluid gameplay. Add a special SCU option that can be destroyed, the first team to repair it gains control over the facility, the defenders would have the easiest time defending it as the attackers would need to punch through several layers of defenses such as destroying shield-generators with small-arms and explosives before they can reach the SCU, which would encourage taking the points if you have a small team but Zergs could/would try to go for the SCU to take a base faster. This also helps focus the attention of players off Spawncamping and onto defending/attacking the SCU, and possibly retaking points while the attackers are busy with the SCU.
More options: Logistics become more important. I had the idea of creating calldowns and linking them to many of the features of the game. You want to be able to revive people? Then you'd better have a special calldown within reach that allows this. Want to keep ammo coming for your friends or repair your tank/friendly MAX's? Needs a calldown. Want to regenerate shields/jumpjet fuel/AOE heals? Needs a calldown. Without calldowns it still works, but at a much slower pace. This would add a new part to the game: placement and defending calldowns on both the attacker and defending side. The flanking/scouting classes of Infiltrators and LA would suddenly be much more important in finding and destroying these calldowns and hampering hostile teams. If you also reduce all the ammo capacities across the board for infantry and vehicles you make them dependant on ammo from calldowns, engineers and Sunderers, which adds another logistical element to the game. Also, this means that infantry AV doesn't need any updates: Infantry could indirecty attack tanks by destroying their ammo calldowns and then just hoping enemies fire at them until they run dry and need to head back.

200 to 250m battles doesn't happen often I know, let me illustrate it better: Tanks don't have much chance of killing infantry easily at those ranges, but infantry (aside from high elevation AV nests with specific weapons) won't be killing any vehicles at all right now. By giving them slow-velocity but highly accurate weapons, vehicles can still evade the AV if they are moving, but if they are sniping infantry from range they are likely to get hit. In such standoffs 4 or 5 infantry with AV loadouts should be able to win the engagement around 50% of the time, either by forcing the tank into cover for extended periods of time or by destroying him. The other 50% of the time the tank kills the infantry. This is assuming average skill for all players involved.

Not sure where you are going with the last sentence, but I think that C4 isn't an exceptional element. It requires a careful approach and being seen is almost equal to a death sentence if the tanker simply reacts to it, and usage costs resources as another trade-off. There are a few scenario's where the C4 would need some changing as it's too powerful (but still negatable, it just isn't good enough a negation compared to the relative ease once you use it), such as people using Valkyries and Galaxies to drop from high above, or using C4 flashes.

I must be really really tired, again I would like you to explain before I react or I might drag myself into some kind of flame war over a misunderstanding.

Depends on the execution. I think that having to kill a crew and only be able to steal empty vehicles is enough of a drawback, especially if this isn't a free ability but a utility that costs resources and the tanks get specific perks to deal with hijacking.

Sure, and I'm not.

Why would it necessarily be a slot item that counters these attacks? We already have a slot item for that btw: Proxy radar. If you stealth up to the vehicle your decloak sound will betray you, if you walk visibly towards the tank you will show up on the radar, so only crouch-walking visibly would work properly, when added to a 10 second hacking timer this would give you a sea of time to detect and kill an infiltrator that will do several things to make sure he's a wonderful slow target.
And if you don't take a slot item, occupied vehicles could simply get a message they are being hacked, no slot required. You are assuming the worst, that a slot item would be required. Others asked for that maybe indirectly, and it's fully possible to have it as a slot item, but that's absolutely not a required fix.
So rather than dumping on the idea, you could post your additions and counters right here!
Let's start: You want a non-item-slot way to have a high chance of detecting an infiltrator that's about to hack you/hacking you, so that the eventual cost of that infiltrator (time, lives, effort to achieve a hack) weighs up against the cost of the vehicle. What is your idea for this?

1: Infantry has the greatest selection of cover in the game, this is because the walls were introduced to keep vehicles out with their powerful weapons. Vehicles don't dominate base battles anymore because they were literally prevented from physically interfering in most battles, which is exactly the point I'm making! If infantry had proper counters to tanks, those walls would never have been necessary and those tanks would still be capable of heavily influencing a fight as they should, tanks should be just as important (not more important, not less important, but the exact same importance) as infantry in a fight. And for that to happen in a fair and fun way, infantry needs to be capable of fighting off those tanks with just as much power as the tanks can fight off the infantry. Take into account that infantry overall is more numerous, and it should be clear that tanks would have more power individually but equal power when compared to the amount taken vs the amount of infantry around.
2: You say that "the only time tanks dominate is when the enemy is too stupid". Well tanks are just as stupid most of the time, but they are allowed to freely dominate? In equal skill battles, tanks should be just as powerful as the infantry, taken into account again that infantry is more numerous. And taking vehicles is *a* solution, not *the* solution. If the game was good, all infantry would have some loadout to deal with tanks. Of course, most of the "free" options should require the infantry to sacrifice his AI weapons to do it. Both to preserve the HA's strong role and to give infantry a trade-off similar to what tanks (should) have.
3: and the last bit is almost gibberish. Tank battles happen more than enough, it's just that bases are so close to each other that pulling a defensive vehicle force in time to defend against oncoming attackers is almost impossible. The approach phase of a base when you put up Sunderers is the vehicle phase in most cases, you can clearly see this at Indar Excavation and Quartz Ridge where the bases have enough room in between. The tank battles are near constant there and show how important that set-up phase is. Too bad those bases are too open by design and pushing the enemy away is relatively easy

Look, infantry AV is not fine. We can go back and forth about this but in the end it should be clear as day: Vehicles in their current form have too much resistance against most current infantry AV, which is why we needed walls to protect the bases. See that? A statement, followed by logical reasoning why it should. You keep saying "infantry AV is fine" but you give nothing that indicates why, or why the walls were needed despite that infantry AV was fine.
Also, "consistently failing to pull free AV tools"? How does "the infantry class(es) with the free AV tools are the most used in the game" strike you? Engineers and Heavies both have free AV weapons, and even the AA weapons they have are good against tanks (in fact they score more vehicle kills than aircraft kills). So how about "no that's not true, see above" for you?

And how the hell am I doing a "turnabout"? I showed you a game element: In RTS's you have infantry, and you can give it a specific and limited role because the player controls everything at the same time. But allowing infantry players to only function as scouts and canon fodder in an FPS is bad form as the infantry players will not enjoy themselves at all, while the tank players will have fun destroying stuff. It's especially bad form if playing infantry is seen as a punishment while playing a tank is the main course of the entire game. Under no circumstances should running out of resources and not having access to a vehicle mean that players feel punished when stuck as infantry.
And only a few highly specific infantry AV weapons can do your long range vehicle destruction, and as I already mentioned those weapons should need nerfing for a better balance. The combined too much accuracy and firepower to be good for the tanking game.

Have I been talking about free and easy ways to utterly destroy a tank? I never said that hijacking, which is the only free option to solo a tank with any chance of success at this point assuming it's not made nearly impossible, should be an easy sure-fire thing to capture a tank. I also said that it should have a resource cost, it could very well be a high resource cost at that.
I have also been saying that soloing a tank with a RL shouldn't be possible. So I don't know why you bring that up.

Different roles, different AV weapons. Medics would be much helped with options to put down shield generators and protect their friends from various threats, including resource costly utility shields capable of withstanding vehicle punishment. Others could get options to obscure vision (Hello LA with smoke) and other options include all the other things I mentioned, divided over different utilities, primary AV weapons that lack AI utility, grenades and class abilities. This would heavily enhance the game, as each class could bring something unique in the AV combat roles they have, most of them wouldn't be carrying RL's as you seem to picture them, they would be carrying weapons that temporarily nerf vehicles.

My idea's would be to make hacking of occupied vehicles impossible. Otherwise there's a lot of other options. Tell-tale sound and/or light that will alert the driver. More directly a HUD alert. slowed down hacking (5 seconds extra per gunner/driver), make the hacking tool a utility that can cost anywhere between 50 to 450 resources (I would put it somewhere at 200 resources). Things like that.

What i want is it setup so you can only hack unoccupied vehicles and it would mean that infiltrators would have to ambush the driver while they are outside the vehicle and then hack the vehicle(or if the driver is distracted hack the vehicle). the location a tanker chooses to repair will become much more important if they don't want to loose their vehicle

the issue isn't the tools the issue that infantry fail to utilize those tools as a team, they go 'wah my RL didn't kill that tank in a 1vs1' infantry AV to be effective requires teamwork against tanks, just as AA requires teamwork to be effective. the best solo counters to tanks in my mind is C4, ESF and other tanks, lets not forget lancers and ravens they can be quiet effective.

stuff like that won't make the game better it'll make the game more arena shooter and less combined arms, if you want to keep tanks from shelling a base then get some people together and counter them with lethal counters, if you know tanks are operating in the area and their general direction you can use cover in most bases to reduce the chance of getting hit.

nerf effects on infantry work because infantry are FREE and nobody looses anything by dying, getting hit by BS infantry AV nerf tools and then dying because they fired lethal AV at you with no chance of escape would be frustrating more so then some are about getting killed by C4.

Infantry do not need an AV buff they need a teamwork buff which is beyond dev control and exists solely within the minds of players.

could you hack vehicles with mans in them in 1?

How do you not have that guy ignored yet?

No idea, haven't played

one would of expected that you did.